LEGISLATIVE INTERVIEW
WITH ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN LAIRD
On November 15th, the Leagues of the Monterey Peninsula and the Salinas Valley co-sponsored a Legislator's Roundtable with our assembly members John Laird and Simon Salinas, using the interview questions provided by the LWVC. The following is a summary of Mr. Laird's responses:
Q: During the growing budget crisis there have been calls from many sides for "structural reforms" in the area of state and local finance. Among the proposals receiving attention are:
- Reducing the number of votes needed to pass the budget from the present two-thirds of each house of the legislature;
- Returning to local governments the property taxes shifted from them to schools during the 1990s;
- Making permanent the "swap" of property taxes for sales taxes that the Legislature used to cover this year's deficit; and
- Establishing a more stringent spending cap than the appropriations limit that currently exists.
Do you support any of these measures, or do you have others to suggest? Would your opinion change if significant portions of the revenues included in this year's budget were not realized?
Mr. Laird supports the Budget Accountability Act. He has concerns about a "spending cap" because emergencies don't fit into it. He believes that "structural reform" begs the real issue, which is that the budget is inadequate for the services. The people have to decide if they want fewer services or will pay to increase revenues. He favors returning the property taxes to local governments because the sales taxes encourage the growth of strip malls and other high sales tax producers at the expense of good land use planning. He said that the legislature "backed into the swap" used to cover this year's deficit because they could not get the votes to increase sales tax revenue.
Mr. Laird expressed concern that the governor's massive new bond proposal may cause prejudice against other future bonds. He believes there is a limit to the bonding capacity and the market for these bonds. He mentioned that sources of revenue that poll well include increasing the income tax on upper brackets. He believes that new revenues are imperative.
Q: The current budget crisis hit just as the demand for higher education is at an all-time high. An estimated 750,000 students will be seeking entry in the next decade--three-quarters of them at the community colleges.
- Access: What should the state do to accommodate this flood of new students as resources keep shrinking? In the face of the current budget deficits, can California retain the commitment of the 1960 Master Plan to provide higher education for "all who may benefit"?
- Adequate resources for a quality education: How can the state stabilize funding for community colleges to ensure that quality education is available in good times and bad? How should the costs of a community college education be fairly distributed among the state, district taxpayers, and students and their families? Current formulas used to determine the community college budget are very complicated. How can the funding process be simplified?
Mr. Laird pointed out that he had spent some years on the Board of the Cabrillo Community College and that our district has all three levels of California higher education represented: community colleges, California State University Monterey Bay, and University of California Santa Cruz. He is aware of the injustice in fee structures for the community colleges and further stated that the UC and CSU systems can offset cuts by raising fees, BUT when community colleges raise fees, the money goes into the state's general fund and does not offset the cuts. The current budget capped growth at CSU and UC, which prevents qualified community college students from entering. He further stated that the capping of growth at UC prevented the proposed merger of Monterey Institute of International Studies with UC Santa Cruz. Mr. Laird favors locking in a deal for 10% of Proposition 98 funds to be used to support community colleges. If this does not occur, he favors separate (new) sources of revenue. See budget comments above about the need for new revenues).
Q: Many experts agree that population pressures and environmental requirements will force Californians to conserve more water and find more uses for recycled water. What policies would you favor to achieve these ends? What priority should be given to water management techniques such as conser-vation and recycling, compared to building dams and reservoirs that take more water out of the environment?
Mr. Laird expressed his thanks to the LWVC for support of his bill, which stated that general plans should take water supply into account during the general plan process. This is a very basic common sense approach, but he could not get the bill out of committee due to the opposition of the building industry. He has served on the Environmental Safety Committee that has documented a number of frightening facts:
- Water sources throughout the state are decreasing due to contamination
- Sea levels are rising due to climate change, resulting in sea water contamination in the Delta
- The Sierra snow pack (the source of much of the water in California) is decreasing due to climate change. The snow pack is down 48% over the last 50 years--where will it be in another 50 years?
Water politics plays a huge role in the problem in California. Mr. Laird believes that people who benefit from the water should pay for the water projects. One must weigh the costs of alternative sources of water. Water conservation is the ONLY common water source for the entire state. Monterey and Santa Cruz counties do a good job but there are still conflicts about metering. He sponsored the "where it goes bill" and the State Department of Water Resources responded by publishing information on its website. However there are still many agricultural and other users who resist metering of their water use. He also passed a bill reforming and improving enforcement of the Williamson Act, which will close loopholes regarding water use.
The issue of water privatization is a problem for both the Monterey Peninsula and Felton, since Cal-Am recently purchased the Felton water company against the wishes of many citizens. Cal-Am, a foreign owned corporation is the private water company of the Monterey Peninsula, currently under State Order 95-10 for over-pumping and damaging the Carmel River. Water privatization is a concern in many areas of the state.
Q: What are the major issues that you see the Legislature must deal with in 2004? What are your personal priorities?
Mr. Laird stated that the budget issues dominate the Legislature's agenda for 2004. Mr. Laird has kept the staff of his predecessor, Fred Keeley, intact in Sacramento. He believes that Mr. Keeley was a problem solver and he wants to follow in his footsteps. His personal priorities include:
- Unfunded mandates. Mr. Laird is chairman of the committee looking at trying to fix this broken process. So far they have recommended repeal of 32 unfunded mandates.
- Long-term solutions to community college funding.
- Water issues including the delta, privatization and climate change.
- AIDS programs.
- Coastal issues - including offshore drilling that may reappear on the agenda due to the current administration in Washington. The public may need to be re-educated on this issue.
- Environmental standards - California wants to keep its own stricter standards re: the Clean Air Act that is being gutted by the Bush administration.
- Initiative reform - Mr. Laird made a modest attempt to put some public light on the initiative process, and Governor Davis vetoed his bill for no good reason (and without consultation).
Mr. Laird is a member of the LWV of Santa Cruz and expressed gratitude to LWVC for support of his bills and our positions on others. It seems that he and the LWVC are "on the same page" regarding the issues.
--Beverly Bean
